Can LLMs replace Neil deGrasse Tyson? Evaluating the Reliability of LLMs as Science Communicators

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14037v1
• Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 06:48:32 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs replace Neil deGrasse Tyson? Evaluating the Reliability of LLMs as Science Communicators
• Authors: Prasoon Bajpai, Niladri Chatterjee, Subhabrata Dutta, Tanmoy Chakraborty,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI assistants are experiencing exponential growth in usage among both expert and amateur users. In this work, we focus on evaluating the reliability of current LLMs as science communicators. We introduce a novel dataset, SCiPS-QA, comprising 742 Yes/No queries embedded in complex scientific concepts.
• Score: 22.567933207841968
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI assistants driven by these models are experiencing exponential growth in usage among both expert and amateur users. In this work, we focus on evaluating the reliability of current LLMs as science communicators. Unlike existing benchmarks, our approach emphasizes assessing these models on scientific questionanswering tasks that require a nuanced understanding and awareness of answerability. We introduce a novel dataset, SCiPS-QA, comprising 742 Yes/No queries embedded in complex scientific concepts, along with a benchmarking suite that evaluates LLMs for correctness and consistency across various criteria. We benchmark three proprietary LLMs from the OpenAI GPT family and 13 open-access LLMs from the Meta Llama-2, Llama-3, and Mistral families. While most open-access models significantly underperform compared to GPT-4 Turbo, our experiments identify Llama-3-70B as a strong competitor, often surpassing GPT-4 Turbo in various evaluation aspects. We also find that even the GPT models exhibit a general incompetence in reliably verifying LLM responses. Moreover, we observe an alarming trend where human evaluators are deceived by incorrect responses from GPT-4 Turbo.

Related papers

• LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints [86.59857711385833]
  We introduce RealInstruct, the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to follow real-world multi-constrained instructions. To address the performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, we propose the Decompose, Critique and Refine (DeCRIM) self-correction pipeline. Our results show that DeCRIM improves Mistral's performance by 7.3% on RealInstruct and 8.0% on IFEval even with weak feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T01:25:10Z)
• See What LLMs Cannot Answer: A Self-Challenge Framework for Uncovering LLM Weaknesses [51.975495361024606]
  We propose a Self-Challenge evaluation framework with human-in-the-loop. Starting from seed instances that GPT-4 fails to answer, we prompt GPT-4 to summarize error patterns that can be used to generate new instances. We then build a benchmark, SC-G4, consisting of 1,835 instances generated by GPT-4 using these patterns, with human-annotated gold responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T19:01:52Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• GPT-Fathom: Benchmarking Large Language Models to Decipher the Evolutionary Path towards GPT-4 and Beyond [29.778018058541676]
  GPT-Fathom is an open-source and reproducible evaluation suite for large language models (LLMs) built on top of OpenAI Evals. We evaluate 10+ leading LLMs as well as OpenAI's legacy models on 20+ curated benchmarks across 7 capability categories, all aligned under settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T16:43:35Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agents [56.104476412839944]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot generalization across various language-related tasks. This paper investigates generative LLMs for relevance ranking in Information Retrieval (IR) To address concerns about data contamination of LLMs, we collect a new test set called NovelEval. To improve efficiency in real-world applications, we delve into the potential for distilling the ranking capabilities of ChatGPT into small specialized models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T10:16:03Z)
• Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliable [117.23966502293796]
  This work decomposes reliability into four facets: generalizability, fairness, calibration, and factuality. We find that GPT-3 outperforms smaller-scale supervised models by large margins on all these facets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T14:52:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.